cute comment,
you seem to make me look like aguy who will shoot anything that moves in this situation, you paint me as out of control, and a skittish shooter, what you don't ask is whether or not me and many other americans out there have the discipline to know what they are firing at in case of an emergency, I know what is behind the person, and I know my own limitations in my accuracy shooting a pistol, as well as many others (hence why we go to the range), but if I'm at a mall, and a gunman starts spraying, and shooting random people, would you rather me, a trained armed civilan take them down, or leave it to the police who have insane amounts of red tape to go through, red tape that takes time, and time is a killers ally, the more time, the more death, what if the gunmen take people hostage, I stand a chance to end the madness, and the more people that are armed around me, the higher the chances are that it will end quicker.

Let me give you a background of where I was raised, in Northern minnesota, hunting is really big, so parents take kids out hunting with them, but before anyone under 18 can go, they have to take a firearms safety course, these kids are in families that own more than one gun, and many of these families also own assault style weapons to go shooting for fun.
another funny thing that I remember, when hunting season was close, people put their hih powered hunting rifles (30-06, .270 Weatherby Mag, 7.62 NATO/x 39/x 54r) in their pickups to be ready for the season, because when they get home, they go to sleep, and when they wake up, they go to the cabin, and what would the school do about it, nothing, you now have upwards of half the student body armed, and nothing seems out of the ordinary...

And yet gun death rates are a mere fraction of America's in every country that does this.

Must be a coincidence

yet violent crimes per capita elsewhere are higher than american violent crimes, so are bombings, and terroristic threats, you also don't factor in many other variables that can exacerbate these issues, such as overall experience with firearms in certain cites, we could go back and forth all day with this and not get anywhere, I would rather us come up with a compromise, we both give up something in order to mutually benefit from the solution, I think totally banning any weapon is way too extreme to be enacted, I think restricting calibers is also too extreme, however, I have no problem with law mandated gun safes, one which you are required to carry the key on your person, or give the key to your most trusted of family members is more potent an argument, it's also the law in MN to have your firearms stored properly, in a locked safe, or box if you have children under a certain age, and accidental discharge deaths fell as a result...

I like you as a human, you voice your opinion, and give proof behind your findings, at least you aren't an idiot

why is it the fault of the bartender or the host that the driver drove off, he was already drunk when he was cut off, or he drove off thinking he was fine, yet it still happens, and regardless, people are able to drink themselves to death in the comfort of their own homes, and can drive a car without having a license, or someone elses for that matter.

"We already blame airport security for the shoe bomber and 911 and have made drastic changes to airline security"

and because of this, when a new technology is tested as a success, people bitch that it is a breach of privacy, like body scan...

"We already blame the pilot for and the aircraft manufacturer for plane crashes and have mandated numerous changes to pilot training and aircraft design."

I couldn't agree more, more training to handle dire situations, that can prevent these accidents from happening, but that still doesn't cover what happens when someone turns a plane into a guided fuel bomb

"So let's follow your examples and do the same thing: mandate changes to gun ownership or gun sales in response to the huge number of gun homicides?"

If this includes mandatory trigger locks, or lock boxes, then I am on board, but if it's a full on weapons ban, then I disagree

It occurred to me on the way home that this thread was doomed from the start, except as a way to let off steam.

If any kind of study was ever done of the problem, the two most likely conclusions/recommendations would be some combination of increased gun control or increased social support. Both are right-wing anathema. So it's a no-win situation for them.

Fuckit. What'll happen will happen. I'm just glad I live here, not there.

It occurred to me on the way home that this thread was doomed from the start, except as a way to let off steam.

If any kind of study was ever done of the problem, the two most likely conclusions/recommendations would be some combination of increased gun control or increased social support. Both are right-wing anathema. So it's a no-win situation for them.

Fuckit. What'll happen will happen. I'm just glad I live here, not there.

Obviously people in the US still feel safer with lots of guns.

I personally fail to understand this and would much rather go up against a criminal with a knife or better still live in a safer society with much less chance of going up against anyone.

I too am just glad I don't live there.

Honestly armed police in every school, whoopie.

What does that say of the society in general?

It says to me that fundamental change is needed in the way people are taught and educated in school and in society in general (TV, mass media, movies).

I believe that, legally, there are 2 differences in the use/ownership of firearms between Canada and the US.

The first is that the right to "bear arms" is mentioned in the US constitution, but not in the constitution of many other countries. Obviously, someone like myself sees interprets the related phrase "well organized militia" as being some form of restriction to gun ownership while others don't see a connection.

The second is what I believe is a massive difference in the interpretation of defense of one's home and real property. So, I have a question for my American friends:

In Canada, defense of the home is limited to the amount of force needed to remove a trespasser from one's home. Lethal force is not acceptable. The only time that lethal force is acceptable is to protect yourself and others from imminent harm when no other options are available. Basically if you can escape, then you have to do that. And imminent harm is a lot more stringent than merely having an intruder in your home: they have to point a gun at you (or appear to do so) or something of that nature. Use of lethal force to protect real property is not self defense and is not legal. Basically if an armed intruder breaks into your house and starts to steal your Big Screen TV and you blow him away, you will be charged. Similar to a bank robber who merely hands you a note: there's no imminent danger. You would have to prove that something more than a mere robbery happened.

The "it's the person not the gun" argument is one that seems to be commonly offered up as some sort of explanation. And there are many people perfectly safe and capable of owning a firearm without hurting others.

However, whether thats a good argument or not, it should be obvious that it's very hard to shoot someone with a gun that doesn't exist.

What it comes down to is a basic choice of opinion:

a) I find gun crime to be an acceptable inevitable consequence of the having firearms in circulation
b) I do not find gun crime to be a acceptable inevitable consequence of having firearms in circulation.

Because for all the arguments it really comes down to that. For all the wishful thinking in the world, and for every 'safely' owned gun out there, you just can't have it both ways i'm afraid.